That’s a very good requirement to question though. This will add considerable costs to the entire project just for a few dozen planes that will end up on the single French aircraft carrier.
The rafale has a navalisable variant and is quite affordable and capable, compared to many offerings, including american ones.
Even if you ignore both the operating and the in-construction French airplane carriers, it’s an interesting export selling point. Lots of people in the pacific and the Indian oceans have airplane carriers or might end up wanting one.
What’s even the point of a common next-gen fighter jet if you compromise on such a core feature on development costs grounds alone ?
Additionally, Spain operates a fixed-wing aircraft carrier with some very outdated planes on it that presumably need replaced, and they’re a full partner in the program. Australia has two ships of the same design too, so if it can fly from the Spanish one then that’s an obvious export market
Europe doesn’t need a carrier capable plane to defend itself. Aircraft carriers are not defensive weapons. France wants an aircraft carrier for it’s own power-projection capabilities. So I think it’s fair to question that kind of a requirement on a joint project.
Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands all have overseas territories that would be reasonable defensive concerns to get aircraft to under a more unified European military policy. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be able to do it
Or you could just build an airstrip on those territories and station some land-based planes there.
I also don’t think it’s unreasonable to consider it. We also considered with the Eurofighter but then decided against it (which is one of the reasons France left the project and build the Rafale instead). It’s just not a capability that most nations need so it makes sense that they don’t want to invest in it.
And the rafale is better. It sells better, too, exports better, has better dogfighting capabilities, etc…
And once again, not only does Europe need to have aircraft carriers – it’s probably cheaper than to build airstrips on every single rock out there and station maintenance facilities on them all, but it’s needed to export the planes. India has aircraft carriers and bought rafales, and with rising tensions in the pacific and Indian oceans, there is a lot of money to be made here.
Even the US need to export planes to pay for their jet costs, why should we hamstrung ourselves ?
And also, why should we rely on the US to free up the bab el-mandeb strait ? Have you seen how the US reacted to that ? I’m done licking facist balls, let’s build 10 European aircraft carriers, and I don’t give a flying fuck who rides them.
Germany is also trying to claim the entire ownership of the project and ignoring the french requirements, like navalisation.
They even tried to buy out Dassault, of all things…
Cooperation means finding compromises. On both ends.
That’s a very good requirement to question though. This will add considerable costs to the entire project just for a few dozen planes that will end up on the single French aircraft carrier.
The rafale has a navalisable variant and is quite affordable and capable, compared to many offerings, including american ones.
Even if you ignore both the operating and the in-construction French airplane carriers, it’s an interesting export selling point. Lots of people in the pacific and the Indian oceans have airplane carriers or might end up wanting one.
What’s even the point of a common next-gen fighter jet if you compromise on such a core feature on development costs grounds alone ?
Additionally, Spain operates a fixed-wing aircraft carrier with some very outdated planes on it that presumably need replaced, and they’re a full partner in the program. Australia has two ships of the same design too, so if it can fly from the Spanish one then that’s an obvious export market
Absolutely. I think this is another french geopolitical wisdom moment germany had too much ego to acknowledge.
The only wisdom here is French self interest.
Europe doesn’t need a carrier capable plane to defend itself. Aircraft carriers are not defensive weapons. France wants an aircraft carrier for it’s own power-projection capabilities. So I think it’s fair to question that kind of a requirement on a joint project.
Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands all have overseas territories that would be reasonable defensive concerns to get aircraft to under a more unified European military policy. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be able to do it
Or you could just build an airstrip on those territories and station some land-based planes there.
I also don’t think it’s unreasonable to consider it. We also considered with the Eurofighter but then decided against it (which is one of the reasons France left the project and build the Rafale instead). It’s just not a capability that most nations need so it makes sense that they don’t want to invest in it.
And the rafale is better. It sells better, too, exports better, has better dogfighting capabilities, etc…
And once again, not only does Europe need to have aircraft carriers – it’s probably cheaper than to build airstrips on every single rock out there and station maintenance facilities on them all, but it’s needed to export the planes. India has aircraft carriers and bought rafales, and with rising tensions in the pacific and Indian oceans, there is a lot of money to be made here.
Even the US need to export planes to pay for their jet costs, why should we hamstrung ourselves ?
And also, why should we rely on the US to free up the bab el-mandeb strait ? Have you seen how the US reacted to that ? I’m done licking facist balls, let’s build 10 European aircraft carriers, and I don’t give a flying fuck who rides them.
Its stupid, how petty they can be and are. At a time when we have to show unity, they are fighting over ownership of the project.